[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Bayesian Harmonic Modelling of Sparse and Irregular Satellite Remote Sensing Time Series of Vegetation Indexes: A Story of Clouds and Fires
Previous Article in Journal
Hybrid Wavelet and Principal Component Analyses Approach for Extracting Dynamic Motion Characteristics from Displacement Series Derived from Multipath-Affected High-Rate GNSS Observations
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Remote Sensing
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/rs12010082
remotesensing-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fine Land Cover Classification in an Open Pit Mining Area Using Optimized Support Vector Machine and WorldView-3 Imagery

by
Weitao Chen
1,2,
Xianju Li
1,2,* and
Lizhe Wang
1,2
1
Faculty of Computer Science, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
2
Hubei Key Laboratory of Intelligent Geo-Information Processing, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12(1), 82; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12010082
Submission received: 17 November 2019 / Revised: 15 December 2019 / Accepted: 23 December 2019 / Published: 24 December 2019
Browse Figures
Graphical abstract
"> Figure 1
<p>Study area and WV-3 fused true color image. RGB = band 5, 3, 2.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Overall flowchart of the methodology employed in this study.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>The predicted map of the study area with the first-level land covers.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Fine land cover classification in an open pit mining area (LCCOM) is essential in analyzing the terrestrial environment. However, researchers have been focusing on obtaining coarse LCCOM while using high spatial resolution remote sensing data and machine learning algorithms. Although support vector machines (SVM) have been successfully used in the remote sensing community, achieving a high classification accuracy of fine LCCOM using SVM remains difficult because of two factors. One is the lack of significant features for efficiently describing unique terrestrial characteristics of open pit mining areas and another is the lack of an optimized strategy to obtain suitable SVM parameters. This study attempted to address these two issues. Firstly, a novel carbonate index that was based on WorldView-3 was proposed and introduced into the used feature set. Additionally, three optimization methods—genetic algorithm (GA), k-fold cross validation (CV), and particle swarm optimization (PSO)—were used for obtaining the optimization parameters of SVM. The results show that the carbonate index was effective for distinguishing the dumping ground from other open pit mining lands. Furthermore, the three optimization methods could significantly increase the overall classification accuracy (OA) of the fine LCCOM by 8.40%. CV significantly outperformed GA and PSO, and GA performed slightly better than PSO. CV was more suitable for most of the fine land cover types of crop land, and PSO for road and open pit mining lands. The results of an independent test set revealed that the optimized SVM models achieved significant improvements, with an average of 8.29%. Overall, the proposed strategy was effective for fine LCCOM.

Graphical Abstract">

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Land degradation has been increasingly recognized as one of the most destructive impacts on the terrestrial environmental during the last century [1,2]. Some researchers have revealed the important effect of open pit mining on local land degradation [1,2,3,4,5]. Accordingly, land covers in complex open pit mining landscapes are being increasingly used as key datasets for global and local land degradation and development studies [6,7,8,9,10,11,12].
Currently, high resolution satellite imagery and machine learning algorithms (MLAs) have been applied to land cover classification in open pit mining areas [6,9,12,13,14]. MLAs can generally accept various features sets [10], which have proven to be valuable in open pit mining areas classification. Several algorithms with excellent performance have been widely used, for example, support vector machine (SVM) [15,16], artificial neural network (ANN) [17], and random forest (RF) [15]. These three algorithms were non-parametric learning methods and no assumptions need to be made for the form of the target function. Therefore, they are becoming increasingly popular in remotely sensed classification [18].
Some researches show that SVM can successfully achieve higher classification accuracy than traditional methods [9,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Nevertheless, two challenges for SVM remain to be addressed in the remote sensing field [15,16]: (1) to select the kernel function and parameter [25]; and, (2) to optimally obtain key parameters, including kernels and penalty parameter C [22,26,27,28]. Our previous research show that it is challenging to achieve higher accuracy for fine land cover classification in an open pit mining area (LCCOM), because of four specific features: significant three-dimensional terrain, strong temporal-spatial variability of surface cover, spectral-spatial homogeneity of mining areas [7], and different phenological stages [9]. From this viewpoint, it is difficult to use the original SVM to improve the classification accuracy of fine LCCOM. Thus, several optimum methods have been used to determine the optimized key parameters of SVM, including several evolutionary algorithms and swarm intelligence algorithms [29,30], such as the genetic algorithm method (GA), cross-validation method (CV), and particle swarm optimization method (PSO).
It was revealed in our previous research that it is essential to obtain beneficial features from new remote sensing sensors to improve the classification accuracy in open pit mining areas [6,7,9]. WorldView-3 (WV-3) has higher spatial and spectral resolution [31], which might be further advantageous in vegetation, hydrocarbons [31], and lithology mapping. Thus, we believe that WV-3 has high potential in improving the accuracy of fine LCCOM [6], but is has not still been confirmed.
The objectives of this study are as follows: (1) to validate the ability of WV-3 in achieving higher classification accuracy of fine LCCOM; and, (2) to determine an optimized SVM method for improving the classification accuracy of fine LCCOM.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

An open pit mining district with an area of 65.16 km2 located in central China (114°13′53.375″–114°20′35.538″E and 30°15′39.957″–30°18′48.352″N) was selected as the study area. Mineral resources relevant activities are very strong in the study area. The mine disturbance here with open pit mining has a history of nearly 70 years, and most of the mines are active nowadays, especially the Wulongquan mine. More detailed information regarding the study area can be found in the literature [6,7,9]. In this study, 23 sites representing different land cover types were selected as the field investigation points, as shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Remote Sensing Data Resources

WV-3 can provide a dataset of higher spatial and spectral resolution from panchromatic, multispectral imagery to short-wave infrared imagery (SWIR) (as listed in Table 1). The use of WV-3 imagery has been found to provide better performance on mapping surface geology targets than conventional sensors [32,33]. The 2A level WV-3 data that were used in this study were acquired on 4 August 2015 with the total cloud cover of 1%.

3. Methods

The overall flowchart of the methodology can be divided into six phases, as presented in Figure 2. The high resolution features of WV-3 images and optimized SVM algorithm were used in this study to improve the classification accuracy of the fine LCCOM. Besides, an independent test set was used to examine the classification models for LCCOM.

3.1. Data Processing

Geometric registration between different bands of the used WV-3 level 2A products can meet the requirement of image fusion. According to our previous study [34], the panchromatic and multispectral data were fused based on the Gram-chmidt method because it provides higher fidelity of spatial and spectral characteristics, which is suitable for studying open pit mining areas.

3.2. Developing Features Based on WV-3

A total of 70 features divided into six types were used in this study (as listed in Table 2).
(1) Various spectral bands: eight VNIR spectral bands of the fused image and eight SWIR spectral bands.
(2) Vegetation index: one is the normalized difference vegetation index [35], which was calculated while using the first near-infrared band (NIR-1) of WV-3; the other is the soil-adjusted vegetation index [36], which was expected to improve the identification ability for bare soil and sparse vegetation in open pit areas. The formula for SAVI is as follows:
SAVI = [(NIR − red)/(NIR + red + L)] × (1 + L),
According to statistic values, the value of L was determined with 0.5. Furthermore, the NIR-1 of WV-2 was used.
(3) Carbonate index (CI): a strong absorption feature at around 2.3 µm [37] characterizes carbonates. It is advantageous in distinguishing non-lithology cover types in mining areas, such as dumping grounds. Accordingly, the CI was developed based on WV-3 characteristics, as follows, in this study:
CI = SWIR-5/SWIR-3,
In formula (2), SWIR-5 and SWIR-3 are the fifth and third bands in the SWIR range, respectively.
(4) Principal component bands: the principal component analysis [38] was carried out to eliminate the redundancies for the eight fused multispectral bands in this study. The top three bands with a cumulative contribution rate of 99.34% were used.
(5) Filter images: it is helpful to improve the classification accuracy in LCCOM for applying Gaussian low-pass filters to optical images [9]. Thus, the eight fused multi-spectral bands were calculated and a kernel size of 3 × 3 was used.
(6) Texture measures: five features belonging to gray level co-occurrence matrix texture [39] measures were calculated with a processing window size of 9 × 9.

3.3. Land Cover Classification Schemes

As previously reported [6,9], there were seven first-level classes in the study area, i.e., open pit mining land, crop land, forest land, water, road, urban and rural residential land, and bare land. Fine classes (for details, see Table 3) should be considered in land cover classification schemes for open pit mining areas due to the big intra-class spectral and topographic differences in the first-level classes. Two new fine types were particularly added in this study (Table 3). One is green dry land with land-water resources for crops mainly from natural precipitation and with high coverage. The other is black roof, usually referring to residential land in industrial parks. All of the procedures, such as training and test set construction, SVM algorithm optimization, classification model developing and prediction, and accuracy assessment were carried out on the fine land cover classes based on the open pit mining area in this study.

3.4. Training Set and Test Sets

Based on our training data polygons [9], a revised version of polygons was obtained (Table 4) based on WV-3 images and the above-mentioned updated fine land cover classification scheme. Almost all of the open pit mining land was delineated in a similar manner, and the others were randomly determined across the study area. We employed a stratified random sampling method in this study. The result is that each class included 1000 samples, in which 900 samples were considered as the training set, while the other 100 were considered as the test set (Table 4). This study used spatially dependent training and test sets for fine LCCOM, with reference to the literature [6,9].
An independent test set with the first-level land covers (i.e., crop, forest, water, road, residential, bare surface, and open pit mining) [9] was used. In this set, there were 700 samples, i.e., 100 samples for each first-level land class.

3.5. Classification Algorithm and Corresponding Parameter Optimization Methods

The penalty parameter C of SVM is key to improving the remote sensing classification accuracy. The polynomial kernels and the radial basis function (RBF) kernel were often used in the remote sensing community [40]. The used kernel parameter G can influence the complexity of the sample feature subspace distribution [16]. The classification accuracy and generalization ability of SVM will decline as G increases. When the G value is small, almost all of the training samples are support vectors. At this time, the training error is small and the test error is close to 1. However, the SVM generalization ability is poor. As the G value increases, the number of support vectors gradually decreases and the training error increases. Nevertheless, the SVM generalization ability is gradually enhanced. With the continued increase, when G reaches a certain threshold, the number of support vectors will increase again, and both training errors and test errors will also increase. At this point, SVM will start to deteriorate, regardless of classification ability or generalization ability. In addition, the penalty parameter C could influence the generalization of SVM. After the sample subspace is determined, when the C value is small, the complexity of the SVM is small, the penalty for the empirical error is small, and the empirical risk value is large.
CV is a time-consuming process, as it is often necessary to evaluate each parameter set at many grid points [26,41]. GAs have been used to obtain SVM kernel parameters, which were integrated into SVM algorithms to improve the accuracy of SVM classification [26,42]. PSO is selected to determine the optimum kernel function, which is particularly effective for the radial basis function kernel [43].
In this study, the GA, CV, and PSO algorithms were selected to optimize G and C parameters of SVM. The CV process was implemented in R software. The GA and PSO algorithms were processed in MATLAB R2009.

3.5.1. k-fold CV Algorithm

The k-fold CV method has been widely used in the remote sensing community [15,44,45,46]. More details regarding the CV could be found in the literature [44]. In this study, a five-fold CV scheme in the function “best.tune” included in the e1071 package [47] was utilized to achieve the “optimal” parameter combination. The maximum mean accuracies resulting from the k-fold CV would be considered as the optimal parameter.

3.5.2. Genetic Algorithm

GA was considered to be an adaptive optimization method according to the genetic processes of biological organisms. Further details on GA can be found in the literature [26,48]. GA can simultaneously identify the optimal SVM kernel parameters without reducing the SVM classification accuracy.

3.5.3. PSO Algorithm

PSO was proposed based on the social behavior of bird flocking, and the detailed principle on PSO could be found in the literature [49,50]. PSO has the advantages of higher efficiency, uncomplicated implementation, and significant exploration abilities for parameter optimization in SVM, both globally and locally [44,51].

3.6. Accuracy Assessment

The classification accuracies of fine LCCOM were evaluated on the basis of the test set. The overall accuracy (OA) was used to indicate the performance of the optimization classification models. The F1-measure [51] was used to describe class-specific accuracy. Moreover, the percentage deviation [52] was calculated on the basis of the three above-mentioned metrics for evaluating differences in the overall performance and the accuracy of each class among different classification models. In addition, the McNemar test was used to examine whether the parameter optimization methods could significantly improve the classification accuracy and whether there is a significant difference between the three optimization methods.

4. Results

4.1. Results of Parameter Optimization

A group of 48 parameter combinations (i.e., eight and six values for gamma and cost; for details, see Table 5) was used for the parameter optimization of SVM algorithm-based classification models. The default values for gamma and cost were 1/ n (n is data dimension) and 1. While using CV, GA, and PSO algorithms, combinations of 2−7 and 27, 2−9 and 27, and 2−5 and 23 for G and C were obtained, respectively.

4.2. Assessment of Classification Results

Four classifications were performed in this study. Table 6 presents the F1-measure, OA, and percentage deviation of different SVM models based on default parameters and different optimization methods. Table 7 presents the results of the McNemar statistical test.

4.2.1. OA and Percentage Deviation

The SVM model that was optimized by CV (CV-SVM) achieved the highest OA of 81.77%, followed by GA-SVM (80.41%), PSO-SVM (80.27%), and SVM (74.55%) (Table 6). Clearly, parameter optimization greatly improved the performances of SVM models. The OA values increased by 9.68% (CV-SVM), 7.86% (GA-SVM), and 7.67% (PSO-SVM), with an average of 8.40%. Moreover, CV outperformed the GA and PSO algorithms in this case, with OA value differences of 1.69% and 1.87%.

4.2.2. F1-Measure and Percentage Deviation of Each Land Cover

Regarding the accuracy of each class (i.e., F1-measure), the three optimization methods yielded different effects. For example, only the following seven land covers complied with the above-mentioned conclusion (i.e., CV overtook GA and PSO): greenhouse, green dry land, gray dry land, fallow land, shrub, bright road, and bright roof.
CV provided the highest F1-measure values for greenhouse (94.36%), green dry land (68.32%), gray dry land (87.50%), fallow land (78.67%), woodland (83.96%), shrub (52.48%), nursery (66.29%), bright road (99.00%), bright roof (88.21%), dark roof (79.26%), bare surface (87.88%), and dumping ground (71.70%); GA provided the highest F1-measure values for coerced forest (79.60%), mine pit pond (99.00%), red roof (96.94%), and blue roof (98.49%); PSO provided the highest F1-measure values for paddy (88.78%), dark road (90.38%), light gray road (86.70%), open pit (52.41%), and ore processing site (54.14%). Moreover, CV and PSO were more effective in discriminating pond and stream, with the highest F1-measure value of 97.54%.
In general, all the three parameter optimization methods yielded over 90% F1-measures for the following land covers: greenhouse, pond and stream, mine pit pond, bright road, red roof, blue roof; over 80% for the following: paddy, gray dry land, woodland, dark road, light gray road, bright roof, and bare surface; over 70% for the following: fallow land, coerced forest, dark roof, and dumping ground; over 60% for the following: green dry land and nursery; and, over 50% for the following: shrub, open pit, and ore processing site.
As for the F1-measure of each class, all three parameter optimization methods showed positive effects, i.e., the percentage deviation of F1-measure ranged from 0.04% to 25.39%, with an average of 9.37%. Moreover, all of the parameter optimization methods improved 70% of the 20 land covers by over 5%: greenhouse (with an average improvement of 8.94%), green dry land (10.29%), gray dry land (15.65%), fallow land (8.08%), shrub (14.21%), coerced forest (8.38%), nursery (17.89%), dark road (11.54%), gray road (12.65%), dark roof (24.02%), bare surface (15.12%), open pit (11.61%), ore processing site (13.07%), and dumping ground (7.42%).
In particular, the CV method provided the highest F1-measure improvements for greenhouse (10.48%), green dry land (11.94%), gray dry land (19.65%), fallow land (12.64%), woodland (3.98%), shrub (16.54%), nursery (22.58%), bright road (5.06%), bright roof (8.57%), dark roof (25.39%), bare surface (16.97%), and dumping ground (8.72%); the GA method provided the highest F1-measure improvements for coerced forest (10.37%), mine pit pond (2.61%), red roof (3.95%), and blue roof (2.72%); PSO method provided the highest F1-measure improvements for paddy (5.21%), dark road (12.98%), gray road (15.42%), open pit (13.96%), and ore processing site (16.21%). CV and PSO were particularly more sensitive in discriminating pond and stream, with the highest F1-measure improvement of 2.06%.

4.2.3. McNemar Test

The McNemar test was conducted for each pair of the models based on SVM with default parameters and those optimized parameters while using the three methods. Table 7 shows pairs of classification models, the numbers of samples that one model wrongly classified and another model that correctly classified, and the corresponding chi-square and p values. The results indicate that: (1) SVM models based on CV, GA, and PSO algorithms significantly outperformed those with default parameters (chi-square values were larger than 3.84 and the p values were smaller than 0.05), i.e., the three parameter optimization methods significantly improved the classification performance; (2) there were significant differences between CV and the other two methods, i.e., CV significantly outperformed GA and PSO; and, (3) GA and PSO methods showed equivalent effects with no statistical significance.

4.3. Assessment of the Independent Test Set

A predicted map with the first-level land covers was obtained based on the classification result of the study area that derived from CV-SVM (Figure 3). The predicted map was poorer than that drawn in [9]. There were misclassifications between all of the land covers. In the west part of the study, the misclassification of crop land as forest land existed. In the whole study area, there were land covers that were wrongly classified as open pit mining land and road.
The map was then erased by the data polygons that were used to construct the dependent training and test sets. Finally, a stratified random sampling method was applied to obtain the independent test set with 700 samples. The land classes of the independent test samples were determined by a visual interpretation based on the WV-3 imagery.
Table 8 shows all of the models’ OA values for the independent test set and Table 9 depicts the results of statistical test. The SVM model just achieved an OA of 57.43%. The optimized SVM models significantly outperformed the SVM, with the improvements of 10.94%, 8.71%, and 5.22% (average 8.29%). Among the three optimized SVM models, just CV-SVM overtook PSO-SVM, and no significant differences existed between other pairs of them.

5. Discussion

5.1. Effectiveness of The Used Features

The features that were used in this study were like that of previous studies [6,9]. The importance of each feature was assessed and then compared with those in other related studies [9]. Chen et al. [6] further confirmed the importance grades of each feature set and determined whether there were significant differences among them. Overall, the commonly used feature sets, such as spectral information, principal component bands, filter images, and texture measures, are effective for fine LCCOM.
Nevertheless, there are three significant differences between this study and the aforementioned two studies, which resulted in different effects on the classification accuracies of different land covers. (1) This study focused on the fine classification of land covers, which is more difficult than that of coarse land covers (neglecting intra-class misclassification) [6,9]. (2) This study utilized more spectral information, soil adjusted vegetation index, and the proposed CI, but not topographic variables and the standard deviation filters, which were the top two important feature sets in the previous studies [6]. (3) The WV-3 data that were used in this study were of much higher resolution than that of Ziyuan-3 image in the previous two studies (about seven times), which further increased the classification difficulty at a fine scale.
Taking open pit and ore processing sites, for example, their low accuracies (about 50%) could be attributed to the inherent difficulty of classification, misclassifications between each other, and the lack of topographic variables. Although Li et al. [9] achieved the highest OA of 87.34% for three land covers of open pit, to a certain degree, it could be attributed to the use of 10% data as the training set and the effect of spatial auto-correlation [53] between the training and test sets. The proposed CI could theoretically help to distinguish different open pit mining land classes, providing relatively higher accuracies for dumping ground. However, it could not differentiate the open pit and ore processing site. Obviously, the spectral band of WV-3 should be further explored to generate more effective lithology indices for fine LCCOM. In addition, the integration of lithology indices, topographic variables, and other features might be effective, and they will be considered in the future.
Similarly, the shrub and nursery exhibited low accuracies, owing to the very high resolution of WV-3 and misclassifications between each other. The addition of more spectral information and soil adjusted vegetation index was not enough for distinguishing them. Higher-level features that are derived from spectral information and more effective spatial features, such as the standard deviation filters, have potential in improving their accuracies, and we will investigate them in the future.
The highest OA for the independent test set was just 63.71%. It was lower than the feature subset-based RF, SVM, and ANN models (with OA values of 77.57%, 72.00%, and 64.29%, respectively), and all feature-based RF and SVM models (with OA values of 74.86% and 68.00%). This revealed that the topographic features were important.

5.2. Dependency of Test and Training Sets and Sampling Scheme

When compared to [6,9], this study used spatially dependent training and test sets for fine LCCOM, through which good OA and F1-measures could be obtained for most fine land covers. In general, independent training and test sets are the prerequisites of reliable accuracy assessment. Although the acquisition method of training and test sets determines their spatial auto-correlation [53], the effect was within normal range, as reflected by the statistical data in Table 4. In addition to the white road (31.63%), the number (or area) fractions of samples in the training and test sets and those in data polygons for each land cover class had the maximum, minimum, and average values of 7.34‰, 0.04‰, and 1.53‰, respectively. The used data were only a small portion of data polygons and the spatial auto-correlation of training and test samples was very small. Therefore, it would not have affected the reliability of the accuracy assessment.
The classification in this study was different from the subclassification of three open pit mining lands in [9]. The spatial auto-correlation was very large; however, the large test set ensured the reliability of the accuracy assessment.
The following conclusions could be drawn regarding the effects of spatial auto-correlation on each land cover. (1) On the whole, spatial auto-correlation had little effect. For example, the land covers of gray dry land, gray road, dark roof, and bare surface exhibited higher spatial auto-correlation (i.e., the above-mentioned higher fraction; 1.60‰, 1.42‰, 2.91‰, and 7.34‰) and their F1-measures were moderate (73.13%, 75.12%, 63.21%, and 75.13%; obtained from the SVM model with default parameters). Moreover, high F1-measures could be obtained for some land covers with low spatial auto-correlation, i.e., wood land (0.12‰ and 80.75%) and pond and stream (0.19‰ and 95.57%). It was clear that the separability of these classes was the dominant reason, although there were some other land covers with high spatial auto-correlation and high F1-measures, such as greenhouse (1.77‰ and 85.41%), mine pit pond (1.52‰ and 96.48%), bright road (31.63‰ and 94.23%), bright roof (1.07‰ and 81.25%), red roof (5.06‰ and 93.26%), and blue roof (1.99‰ and 95.88%). (2) The low accuracies of three surface-mined lands could be partly attributed to the insufficient number of training samples, which led to the low spatial auto-correlation to some degree. It could be further concluded that more training samples are necessary and the spatial auto-correlation should be fully and reasonably exploited for open pit mining lands with relatively low separability.
The results of independent test set in this study were worse than those in [9]. These results might reflect the true predict ability of the SVM models. More training data were necessary for better predicted map of the study area, owing to the complexity and difficulty of LCCOM and fine LCCOM. Small training data were just applicable for model comparison.

5.3. Influence of Parameter Optimization

For SVM-based models, parameter optimization is indispensable and it can significantly affect the obtained results [16,24]. Furthermore, many previous studies reported that parameter optimization has positive effects. Similarly, it can be concluded in this study that the three parameter optimization methods significantly improved the classification accuracy of LCCOM. Moreover, CV significantly outperformed GA and PSO, and GA slightly overtook PSO. A statistical test was also performed to determine whether there were significant improvements after parameter optimization and whether there were significant differences among them. In contrast, most studies only used one of the common optimization algorithms or focused only on modifying specific algorithms. Few studies have compared different optimization algorithms. For example, a comprehensive assessment was carried out for different optimization methods in SVM, such as continuous ant colony optimization, GA, imperialist competitive algorithm, and PSO [54,55]. The authors concluded that the suitability of the algorithm depended on the specific application. The limited parameter space [55] and the complexity of LCCOM in this study might obstruct the performance of more complex algorithms, such as GA and PSO.
Some studies have also reported that the combinatorial optimization of feature selection and parameter optimization in SVM might be more effective than only optimizing the parameters in SVM [55,56]. In this study, multiple types of features with highly redundant and correlated information were utilized.
Different land covers showed different sensitivities regarding the three parameter optimization methods. For example, CV was more suitable for most of the fine land covers of crop land (i.e., CV achieved the most substantial accuracy improvements), and PSO for road and open pit mining lands. Schuster et al. [52] and Li et al. [9] also drew a similar conclusion that easily distinguishable land covers are less sensitive to the additional operation, which is the parameter optimization in this study and feature selection in the previous two studies.

6. Conclusions

In this study, SVM models with three parameter optimization methods were investigated for improving the higher accuracy of fine LCCOM based on WV-3 images. Overall, the accuracy was significantly improved. In particular, the fine land covers from mining activities could be identified based on our proposed strategy. This is different from that of our previous study, which focused only on the coarse land cover classes in open pit mining areas. Some important conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, the proposed CI based on WV-3 was useful in distinguishing the dumping ground from other open pit mining lands. Secondly, parameter optimization methods can significantly improve the classification accuracy of fine LCCOM. CV significantly outperformed GA and PSO, and GA slightly overtook PSO. Finally, CV was more suitable for most of fine land covers of crop land, and PSO for road and open pit mining lands. The three optimized SVM models also achieved significant improvements based on the independent test set. In general, the fine land covers in an open pit area could be classified with higher accuracy while using WV-3 and SVM algorithms based on parameter optimization. In the future, combinatorial optimization should be investigated [57], and we will focus on the generalization ability of the proposed strategy in different mining regions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.C. and X.L.; methodology, W.C. and X.L.; validation, W.C. and X.L.; writing—original draft preparation, W.C. and X.L.; writing—review and editing, L.W.; visualization, X.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was founded by the Fundamental Research Funds for Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number U1803117, 41701516, U1711266), Central Universities, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) (grant number CUG170648), and Open Research Project of the Hubei Key Laboratory of Intelligent Geo-Information Processing (grant numberKLIGIP-2018B07).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Saviour, M.N. Environmental impact of soil and sand mining: A review. Int. J. Sci. Environ. Technol. 2012, 1, 125–134. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mbaya, R.P. Land degradation due to mining: The gunda scenario. Int. J. Geogr. Geol. 2013, 2, 144–158. [Google Scholar]
  3. Qian, T.; Bagan, H.; Kinoshita, T.; Yamagata, Y. Spatial-temporal analyses of surface coal mining dominated land degradation in holingol, Inner Mongolia. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2014, 7, 1675–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sonter, L.J.; Herrera, D.; Barrett, D.J.; Galford, G.L.; Moran, C.J.; Soares-Filho, B.S. Mining drives extensive deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Johansen, K.; Erskine, P.D.; McCabe, M.F. Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to Assess the Rehabilitation Performance of Open Cut Coal Mines; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; p. 209. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, W.; Li, X.; He, H.; Wang, L. Assessing different feature sets’ effects on land cover classification in complex surface-mined landscapes by ZiYuan-3 satellite imagery. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Chen, W.; Li, X.; He, H.; Wang, L. A review of fine-scale land use and land cover classification in open-pit mining areas by remote sensing techniques. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Gong, P.; Wang, J.; Yu, L.; Zhao, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Liang, L.; Niu, Z.; Huang, X.; Fu, H.; Liu, S.; et al. Finer resolution observation and monitoring of global land cover: First mapping results with Landsat TM and ETM+ data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2013, 34, 2607–2654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Li, X.; Chen, W.; Cheng, X.; Wang, L. A comparison of machine learning algorithms for mapping of complex surface-mined and agricultural landscapes using ZiYuan-3 stereo satellite imagery. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. De L. Lobo, F.; Souza-Filho, P.W.M.; de Novo, E.M.L.m.; Carlos, F.M.; Barbosa, C.C.F. Mapping mining areas in the Brazilian Amazon using MSI/sentinel-2 imagery (2017). Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Sellers, P.J.; Meeson, B.W.; Hall, F.G.; Asrar, G.; Murphy, R.E.; Schiffer, R.A.; Huemmrich, K.F. Remote sensing of the land surface for studies of global change: Models algorithms experiments. Remote Sens. Environ. 1995, 4257, 3–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yu, L.; Xu, Y.; Xue, Y.; Li, X.; Cheng, Y.; Liu, X.; Porwal, A.; Holden, E.J.; Yang, J.; Gong, P. Monitoring surface mining belts using multiple remote sensing datasets: A global perspective. Ore Geol. Rev. 2018, 101, 675–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Maxwell, A.E.; Warner, T.A.; Strager, M.P.; Pal, M. Combining rapideye satellite imagery and lidar for mapping of mining and mine reclamation. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2014, 80, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Maxwell, A.E.; Warner, T.A.; Strager, M.P.; Conley, J.F.; Sharp, A.L. Assessing machine-learning algorithms and image- and lidar-derived variables for GEOBIA classification of mining and mine reclamation. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2015, 36, 954–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Goldblatt, R.; You, W.; Hanson, G.; Khandelwal, A.K. Detecting the boundaries of urban areas in India: A dataset for pixel-based image classification in google earth engine. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Mountrakis, G.; Im, J.; Ogole, C. Support vector machines in remote sensing: A review. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2011, 66, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Schalkoff, R.J. Artificial Neural Networks (International ed); McGraw-Hill Higher Education: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  18. Belgiu, M.; Drăgu, L. Random forest in remote sensing: A review of applications and future directions. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2016, 114, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. De Boissieu, F.; Sevin, B.; Cudahy, T.; Mangeas, M.; Chevrel, S.; Ong, C.; Rodger, A.; Maurizot, P.; Laukamp, C.; Lau, I.; et al. Regolith-geology mapping with support vector machine: A case study over weathered Ni-bearing peridotites, New Caledonia. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2018, 64, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ishida, H.; Oishi, Y.; Morita, K.; Moriwaki, K.; Nakajima, T.Y. Development of a support vector machine based cloud detection method for MODIS with the adjustability to various conditions. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 205, 390–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Karan, S.K.; Samadder, S.R. Improving accuracy of long-term land-use change in coal mining areas using wavelets and support vector machines. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2018, 39, 84–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Morales-Alvarez, P.; Perez-Suay, A.; Molina, R.; Camps-Valls, G. Remote sensing image classification with large-scale gaussian processes. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2018, 56, 1103–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Negri, R.G.; Da Silva, E.A.; Casaca, W. Inducing contextual classifications with kernel functions into support vector machines. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2018, 15, 962–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Xiao, X.; Zhang, T.; Zhong, X.; Shao, W.; Li, X. Support vector regression snow-depth retrieval algorithm using passive microwave remote sensing data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 210, 48–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Maulik, U.; Chakraborty, D. Remote sensing image classification: A survey of support-vector-machine-based advanced techniques. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Mag. 2017, 5, 33–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liu, P.; Choo, K.K.R.; Wang, L.; Huang, F. SVM or deep learning? A comparative study on remote sensing image classification. Soft Comput. 2017, 21, 7053–7065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sukawattanavijit, C.; Chen, J.; Zhang, H. GA-SVM algorithm for improving land-cover classification using SAR and optical remote sensing data. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2017, 14, 284–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhuo, L.; Zheng, J.; Li, X.; Wang, F.; Ai, B.; Qian, J. A genetic algorithm based wrapper feature selection method for classification of hyperspectral images using support vector machine. In Proceedings of the Geoinformatics 2008 and Joint Conference on GIS and Built Environment: Classification of Remote Sensing Images, Guangzhou, China, 28–29 June 2008; Volume 7147, p. 71471J. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wu, C.H.; Tzeng, G.H.; Goo, Y.J.; Fang, W.C. A real-valued genetic algorithm to optimize the parameters of support vector machine for predicting bankruptcy. Expert Syst. Appl. 2007, 32, 397–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhai, S.; Jiang, T. A novel particle swarm optimization trained support vector machine for automatic sense-through-foliage target recognition system. Knowl. Based Syst. 2014, 65, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kruse, F.A.; Baugh, W.M.; Perry, S.L. Validation of digitalglobe Worldview-3 Earth imaging satellite shortwave infrared bands for mineral mapping. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 2015, 9, 096044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Asadzadeh, S.; de Souza Filho, C.R. Investigating the capability of Worldview-3 superspectral data for direct hydrocarbon detection. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 173, 162–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Salehi, T.; Tangestani, H.M. Large-scale mapping of iron oxide and hydroxide minerals of zefreh porphyry copper deposit, using Worldview-3 VNIR data in the Northeastern Isfahan, Iran. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2018, 73, 156–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chen, W.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, Y. Comparison of fusion imageries with spectral fidelity using SPOT5. In MIPPR 2009: Multispectral Image Acquisition and Processing; International Society for Optics and Photonics: Orlando, FL, USA, 2009; Volume 7494, p. 74941K. [Google Scholar]
  35. Goward, S.N.; Markham, B.; Dye, D.G.; Dulaney, W.; Yang, J. Normalized difference vegetation index measurements from the advanced very high resolution radiometer. Remote Sens. Environ. 1991, 35, 257–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Huete, A. A soil–adjusted vegetation index (SAVI). Remote Sens. Environ. 1998, 25, 295–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Clark, R.N.; Roush, T.L. Reflectance spectroscopy: Quantitative analysis techniques for remote sensing applications. J. Geophys. Res. 1984, 89, 6329–6340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pearson, K., LIII. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. London, Edinburgh, Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci. 1901, 2, 559–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Haralick, R.M.; Shanmugam, K.; Dinstein, I. Textural Features for Image Classification. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. 1973, 6, 610–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Huang, C.; Davis, L.S.; Townshend, J.R.G. An assessment of support vector machines for land cover classification. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2002, 23, 725–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bazi, Y.; Melgani, F. Toward an optimal SVM classification system for hyperspectral remote sensing images. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2006, 44, 3374–3385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ghoggali, N.; Melgani, F. Genetic SVM approach to semisupervised multitemporal classification. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2008, 5, 212–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bazi, Y.; Melgani, F. Semisupervised PSO-SVM regression for biophysical parameter estimation. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2007, 45, 1887–1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cracknell, M.J.; Reading, A.M. Geological mapping using remote sensing data: A comparison of five machine learning algorithms, their response to variations in the spatial distribution of training data and the use of explicit spatial information. Comput. Geosci. 2014, 63, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Fassnacht, F.E.; Hartig, F.; Latifi, H.; Berger, C.; Hernández, J.; Corvalán, P.; Koch, B. Importance of sample size, data type and prediction method for remote sensing-based estimations of aboveground forest biomass. Remote Sens. Environ. 2014, 154, 102–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ghamisi, P.; Benediktsson, J.A. Feature selection based on hybridization of genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimization. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2015, 12, 309–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Meyer, D.; Dimitriadou, E.; Hornik, K.; Weingessel, A.; Leisch, F. Misc Functions of the Department of Statistics (e1071); R Package Version 1.6–4; TU Wien: Vienna, Austria, 2014; p. 1071. [Google Scholar]
  48. Beasley, D.; Bull, D.R.; Martin, R.R. An overview of genetic algorithms: Part 1, fundamentals. Univ. Comput. 1993, 15, 56–69. [Google Scholar]
  49. Kennedy, J.; Eberhart, R. Particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, Perth, Western Australia, 27 November–1 December 1995; Volume 4, pp. 1942–1948. [Google Scholar]
  50. Wang, L.; Geng, H.; Liu, P.; Lu, K.; Kolodziej, J.; Ranjan, R.; Zomaya, A.Y. Particle swarm optimization based dictionary learning for remote sensing big data. Knowledge-Based Syst. 2015, 79, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Daskalaki, S.; Kopanas, I.; Avouris, N. Evaluation of classifiers for an uneven class distribution problem. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2006, 20, 381–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Schuster, C.; Förster, M.; Kleinschmit, B. Testing the red edge channel for improving land-use classifications based on high-resolution multi-spectral satellite data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2012, 33, 5583–5599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chen, W.; Li, X.; Wang, Y.; Chen, G.; Liu, S. Forested landslide detection using LiDAR data and the random forest algorithm: A case study of the Three Gorges, China. Remote Sens. Environ. 2014, 152, 291–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Liu, T.; Abd-Elrahman, A.; Morton, J.; Wilhelm, V.L. Comparing fully convolutional networks, random forest, support vector machine, and patch-based deep convolutional neural networks for object-based wetland mapping using images from small unmanned aircraft system. GISci. Remote Sens. 2018, 55, 243–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tamimi, E.; Ebadi, H.; Kiani, A. Evaluation of different metaheuristic optimization algorithms in feature selection and parameter determination in SVM classification. Arab. J. Geosci. 2017, 10, 478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, M.; Wan, Y.; Ye, Z.; Lai, X. Remote sensing image classification based on the optimal support vector machine and modified binary coded ant colony optimization algorithm. Inf. Sci. 2017, 402, 50–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Li, X.; Tang, Z.; Chen, W.; Wang, L. Multimodal and Multi-Model Deep Fusion for Fine Classification of Regional Complex Landscape Areas Using ZiYuan-3 Imagery. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Remotesensing 12 00082 g001 550
Figure 1. Study area and WV-3 fused true color image. RGB = band 5, 3, 2.
Figure 1. Study area and WV-3 fused true color image. RGB = band 5, 3, 2.
Remotesensing 12 00082 g001
Remotesensing 12 00082 g002 550
Figure 2. Overall flowchart of the methodology employed in this study.
Figure 2. Overall flowchart of the methodology employed in this study.
Remotesensing 12 00082 g002
Remotesensing 12 00082 g003 550
Figure 3. The predicted map of the study area with the first-level land covers.
Figure 3. The predicted map of the study area with the first-level land covers.
Remotesensing 12 00082 g003
Table
Table 1. Main specification of worldview-3 [34].
Table 1. Main specification of worldview-3 [34].
Sensor BandsBand NameWavelength Range (nm)Sensor Resolution (m)
Panchromatic450–8000.31
Visible and near infrared (VNIR)Coastal Blue400–4501.24
Blue450–510
Green510–580
Yellow585–625
Red630–690
Red Edge705–745
NIR-177–895
NIR-2860–1040
Short-wave infrared (SWIR)SWIR-11195–1225Commercial delivery at 7.5 m resolution
SWIR-21550–1590
SWIR-31640–1680
SWIR-41710–1750
SWIR-52145–2185
SWIR-62185–2225
SWIR-72235–2285
SWIR-82285–2365
Table
Table 2. Details of the feature set used in this study.
Table 2. Details of the feature set used in this study.
Image FeaturesFeature NamesNumber
Various spectral bandsVNIR_(1, 2, …, 8), SWIR_(1, 2, …, 8)16
Vegetation indicesNormalized difference vegetation index, Soil-adjusted vegetation index2
Carbonate IndexCI1
Principal component bandsP1, P2, P33
Filter imagesGaussian low-pass filter _VNIR_(1, 2, …, 8)8
Texture measures(Cor, Con, Asm, Hom, Ent)_VNIR_(1, 2, …, 8)40
Total70
VNIR_(1, 2, …, 8): fused bands of eight VNIR bands; SWIR_(1, 2, …, 8): eight shortwave infrared bands; CI: carbonate Index; Cor, Con, Asm, Hom, Ent: correlation, contrast, angular second moment, homogeneity, entropy.
Table
Table 3. Land cover classification schemes used in this study (revised from [9]).
Table 3. Land cover classification schemes used in this study (revised from [9]).
Fine Land Cover TypesDescription
Opencast pitHaving mine pit lakes and spiral roads.
Ore processing siteCharacterized by linear mineral processing facilities and highly reflective rubble.
Dumping groundLocated around stopes and may be gray in true color images.
Paddy fieldHaving adequate water supply and used for cultivation of rice, lotus, and other aquatic crops.
Vegetable and fruit greenhouseHaving white plastic film sides and roofs, and high surface albedo with regular rectangular shapes.
Green dry landOn the land water resources for crops mainly from natural precipitation and with high coverage.
Gray dry landOn the land water resources for crops mainly from natural precipitation and with low coverage.
Fallow landNo crops growing at the present stage.
WoodlandIncludes timber stands, economic forests, and shelterbelts that have high chlorophyll content and are dark red in the false color image (R—NIR-1, G—Red, B—Green).
Shrub forestHaving multiple stems and shorter height, generally less than 2 m tall, and is bright red in false color images.
Forest under stressUnder the influence of surface mining development, around surface-mined land, having large amounts of deposited mineral dust, poor growth, and is grayish in true color images (R—Red, G—Green, B—Blue).
Nursery and orchardHaving a rectangular shape like cropland dotted by vegetation cover and exposed soil and is black in true color images.
Pond and streamIncluding many fish ponds with regular rectangular shapes.
Mine pit pondLakes created during and after mining, typically with irregular shapes.
Dark roadUsually referring to asphalt highways.
Bright roadUsually referring to cement roads.
Light gray roadUsually referring to dirt roads.
Bright roof Usually referring to urban and town areas.
Red roof Usually referring to rural land.
Dark roof Usually referring to residential land in industrial parks
Blue roof Usually referring to land used for industrial parks.
Bare surfaceReferring to exposed land with little vegetation.
Table
Table 4. Description of the Training Set and Test Set Used in This Study.
Table 4. Description of the Training Set and Test Set Used in This Study.
Fine Land Cover TypesNumber of DPsArea of DPs (km2)Number of Pixels in DPs (103)Fraction (‰)
Open pit172.2224,6350.04
Ore processing site360.9210,2560.10
Dumping ground380.7987240.11
Paddy360.1010850.92
greenhouse130.055651.77
Green dry land660.1820210.49
Gray dry land300.066261.60
Fallow land420.0910130.99
Woodland710.7582980.12
Shrubbery430.1212950.77
Coerced forest280.1112280.81
Nursery410.2123860.42
Pond and stream990.4752530.19
Mine pit pond120.066591.52
Dark road90.043992.50
Bright road50.003231.63
Light gray road630.067041.42
Bright roof610.089321.07
Red roof1280.021985.06
Dark roof810.033442.91
Blue roof330.055031.99
Bare surface60.011367.34
DPs: data polygons; Fraction: number of pixels in the training and test sets divided by the number of pixels in DPs.
Table
Table 5. Parameter of optimization results.
Table 5. Parameter of optimization results.
ParameterRangesResults
CVGAPSO
G2−11, 2−9, …, 232−72−92−5
C2−3, 2−1, …, 27272723
Table
Table 6. Classification accuracy of different methods (%).
Table 6. Classification accuracy of different methods (%).
Second Level ClassesSVMCVGAPSOCV-PGA-PPSO-P
Open pit45.9951.5850.0052.4112.158.7213.96
Ore processing site46.5951.4352.4654.1410.3912.6016.21
Dumping ground65.9571.7069.6171.228.725.557.99
Paddy 84.3888.3287.9688.784.674.245.21
greenhouse85.4194.3693.1991.5810.489.117.22
Green dry land61.0368.3267.9165.7011.9411.277.65
Gray dry land73.1387.5084.3681.8619.6515.3611.94
Fallow land69.8478.6774.1573.6312.646.175.43
Woodland80.7583.9683.1883.903.983.013.90
Shrubbery45.0352.4852.3149.5016.5416.179.93
Coerced forest 72.1278.7979.6076.109.2510.375.52
Nursery 54.0866.2961.5463.4422.5813.7917.31
Pond and stream95.5797.5496.6297.542.061.102.06
Mine pit pond96.4898.5199.0098.022.102.611.60
Dark road80.0089.8687.4490.3812.339.3012.98
Bright road94.2399.0098.0097.515.064.003.48
Light gray road75.1286.5480.6386.7015.207.3315.42
Bright roof 81.2588.2187.3185.008.577.464.62
Red roof 93.2695.4396.9494.422.333.951.24
Dark roof 63.2179.2677.7878.1425.3923.0523.62
Blue roof 95.8897.4698.4995.921.652.720.04
Bare surface75.1387.8885.4386.1516.9713.7114.67
OA74.5581.7780.4180.279.687.867.67
P—percentage deviation.
Table
Table 7. McNemar test results for the mapping of open pit mining areas. fij: the numbers of cases that were wrongly classified by classifier i but correctly classified by j (i, j = 1, 2); χ2: chi-square; p: probability value.
Table 7. McNemar test results for the mapping of open pit mining areas. fij: the numbers of cases that were wrongly classified by classifier i but correctly classified by j (i, j = 1, 2); χ2: chi-square; p: probability value.
Pair of Classificationsf12f21χ2p
SVM vs. CV2297084.6<0.001
SVM vs. GA1784973.3<0.001
SVM vs. PSO1866064.5<0.001
CV vs. GA60906.0<0.05
CV vs. PSO46798.7<0.01
GA vs. PSO76790.1
Table
Table 8. Overall accuracies (OAs) of different methods for the independent test set (%).
Table 8. Overall accuracies (OAs) of different methods for the independent test set (%).
SVMCVGAPSOCV-PGA-PPSO-P
OA57.4363.7162.4360.4310.948.715.22
P—percentage deviation.
Table
Table 9. McNemar test results of different models for the independent test set. fij: the numbers of cases that were wrongly classified by classifier i but correctly classified by j (i, j = 1, 2); χ2: chi-square; p: probability value.
Table 9. McNemar test results of different models for the independent test set. fij: the numbers of cases that were wrongly classified by classifier i but correctly classified by j (i, j = 1, 2); χ2: chi-square; p: probability value.
Pair of Classificationsf12f21χ2p
SVM vs. CV1276024.0<0.001
SVM vs. GA1024423.0<0.001
SVM vs. PSO955113.3<0.001
CV vs. GA51600.7
CV vs. PSO39625.2<0.025
GA vs. PSO56701.6

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, W.; Li, X.; Wang, L. Fine Land Cover Classification in an Open Pit Mining Area Using Optimized Support Vector Machine and WorldView-3 Imagery. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12010082

AMA Style

Chen W, Li X, Wang L. Fine Land Cover Classification in an Open Pit Mining Area Using Optimized Support Vector Machine and WorldView-3 Imagery. Remote Sensing. 2020; 12(1):82. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12010082

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Weitao, Xianju Li, and Lizhe Wang. 2020. "Fine Land Cover Classification in an Open Pit Mining Area Using Optimized Support Vector Machine and WorldView-3 Imagery" Remote Sensing 12, no. 1: 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12010082

APA Style

Chen, W., Li, X., & Wang, L. (2020). Fine Land Cover Classification in an Open Pit Mining Area Using Optimized Support Vector Machine and WorldView-3 Imagery. Remote Sensing, 12(1), 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12010082

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop